❈ ❈ ❈

UGC Fairness Guidelines: SC Keep Triggers Nationwide Scholar Outrage

Mukund Jha

In what many pupil organisations, social justice advocates and authorized students are calling a “deeply regressive second” for Indian larger training, the Supreme Court docket on Thursday imposed an interim keep on the College Grants Fee (Promotion of Fairness in Increased Schooling Establishments) Laws, 2026. The keep has triggered protests throughout campuses, notably in Delhi College, and reopened elementary questions on caste discrimination, and the judiciary’s method to social justice.

The apex courtroom’s intervention has successfully halted the implementation of rules that had been supposed—nevertheless imperfectly—to deal with caste-based, gender-based, and disability-based discrimination in universities and schools.

For critics, the episode represents a well-recognized sample: symbolic gestures towards social justice adopted by capitulation to the entrenched privileged sections. As one pupil protester put it, “That is the politics of ‘heads I win, tails I win’—guidelines are introduced, after which quietly buried.”

What Had been UGC Fairness Laws, 2026?

On January 13, 2026, the UGC notified the Promotion of Fairness in Increased Schooling Establishments Laws, 2026, which had been deemed to have come into pressure from January 15. These rules had been meant to switch the 2012 UGC tips on stopping discrimination in larger training establishments.

The acknowledged goal of the brand new rules was to curb discrimination on the idea of: caste, faith, gender, fatherland, and incapacity.

The structure of Fairness Committees in universities, mechanisms for grievance redressal, and institutional duty to forestall discriminatory practices on campus was proposed.

Importantly, these rules didn’t emerge in a vacuum. They had been the end result of years of sustained struggles by college students, academics, and households of victims of institutional discrimination—most notably following the loss of life of analysis scholar Rohith Vemula on the College of Hyderabad and the loss of life of Dr Payal Tadvi. The demand for a complete Rohith Vemula Act to deal with caste discrimination in larger training has been central to those actions.

Mockingly, even earlier than the SC keep, many progressive students and pupil organisations had criticised the 2026 rules as insufficient and diluted. They argued that the principles lacked enforceable punitive provisions, failed to ensure independence of grievance committees, and excluded premier establishments, equivalent to IITs, IIMs, and personal universities from their ambit.

But, regardless of being broadly seen as weak and inadequate, the rules provoked fierce opposition from teams figuring out themselves as defenders of “advantage” and “tutorial freedom”—a rhetoric lengthy related to upper-caste privilege in Indian larger training.

SC Keep: What Did the Court docket Say?

In response to LiveLaw, a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi took up the matter for pressing listening to on January 29, 2026. The courtroom imposed an interim keep on the rules and raised a sequence of questions directed on the UGC and the Union authorities.

Among the many key observations and questions recorded by LiveLaw had been: Why is caste-based discrimination outlined individually, when the definition of discrimination already covers a number of grounds? Are the provisions sufficiently clear, or do they threat misuse and arbitrariness? Might the rules, if improperly applied, deepen social divisions slightly than scale back discrimination? Why was ragging not explicitly included, provided that it stays a major problem on campuses?

The SC directed the Centre and UGC to file detailed responses and requested UGC to contemplate redrafting the rules. It fastened the following date of listening to for March 19, 2026. Till then, the courtroom ordered that the 2012 UGC tips would proceed to use nationwide.

Throughout the listening to, the CJI additionally made remarks questioning whether or not India’s progress towards a “casteless society” was being reversed, noting that sections of Scheduled Castes (SCs) had turn out to be economically well-off.

The Downside with ‘Castelessness’

These remarks instantly drew criticism. Scholar teams and social justice advocates identified that invoking the thought of a “casteless society” whereas caste-based discrimination stays structurally embedded quantities to denial of lived realities.

Critics additionally recalled a latest incident through which former CJI B.R. Gavai was focused with casteist abuse, together with the throwing of a shoe by a lawyer—an incident that starkly illustrated how caste prejudice persists even on the highest ranges of the judiciary.

For a lot of, the contradiction was obvious: if caste discrimination had been actually receding, why would complaints of caste-based discrimination in universities rise sharply?

In response to UGC information cited by pupil organisations, complaints of caste-based discrimination elevated by 118.4% over the previous 5 years.

Govt Silence and Selective Outrage

The SC’s keep has additionally uncovered the selective outrage of the political institution and enormous sections of the company media.

In recent times, minor slogans raised on campuses like Jawaharlal Nehru College (JNU) have been portrayed as existential threats to the nation, triggering police circumstances, tv trials, and branding of scholars as “anti-national.” In distinction, protests in opposition to the UGC Fairness Laws witnessed slogans equivalent to “Modi teri qabr khudegi” and defacement of photos of the Prime Minister and Residence Minister—but no police motion, no outrage, and no media hysteria adopted.

Observers argue that the distinction lies in who’s protesting. When dissent comes from marginalised college students demanding dignity and equality, it’s criminalised. When it comes from socially dominant teams defending privilege, it’s handled with exceptional tolerance.

College students Protest

Essentially the most seen resistance to the Supreme Court docket’s keep got here from Delhi College, the place tons of of scholars marched on Thursday.

College students marched from the Arts College, condemning what they described as a “judicial rollback of social justice.” The protest foregrounded the alarming rise in caste-based discrimination complaints and argued that the UGC rules, whereas flawed, had been a essential step in addressing entrenched institutional bias.

The scholars demanded:

• Speedy implementation of the UGC Fairness Laws
• Extension of the rules to IITs, IIMs, and personal universities
• Democratic number of pupil representatives in Fairness Committees
• Inclusion of gender minorities in grievance redressal mechanisms

The All-India College students’ Affiliation (AISA) issued a scathing assertion, describing the SC keep as “reprehensible however predictable.”

AISA highlighted what it known as a “sample of judicial deference to dominant caste pursuits.” The organisation identified that no keep was granted throughout hearings on: The ten% EWS reservation, The abrogation of Jammu and Kashmir’s statehood, The controversial Particular Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, But, within the case of the UGC Fairness Laws, a keep was imposed even earlier than detailed hearings might start.

“What else is that this, if not a transparent show of Brahmanism at work?” AISA requested, calling for a nationwide motion to enact the Rohith Act. The organisation endorsed the draft ready by the Karnataka authorities as a extra complete framework to deal with institutional violence in opposition to SC, ST, and OBC college students.

A Acquainted Sample: Symbolism With out Substance

For a lot of observers, the episode suits neatly right into a broader political sample below the present regime. The federal government can declare that it launched fairness rules, thereby signalling concern for social justice. Concurrently, by failing to defend them robustly in courtroom—and by remaining silent when they’re stayed—it reassures dominant social teams that their pursuits stay safe.

Critics allege that the Centre didn’t argue forcefully in defence of the rules earlier than the SC, contrasting this with the aggressive authorized posture adopted by the federal government in different politically delicate circumstances.

The Bigger Query

The controversy surrounding the UGC Fairness Laws shouldn’t be merely a authorized dispute. It’s a political and social confrontation over the that means of equality in Indian larger training.

Are anti-discrimination measures inherently divisive, or is it discrimination itself that fractures society? Are universities impartial areas, or are they formed by historic hierarchies of caste and energy? And eventually, will the judiciary act as a guarantor of substantive equality, or retreat into summary notions of neutrality that depart structural injustice untouched?

As protests unfold and pupil organisations mobilise, one factor is obvious: the keep on the UGC Fairness Laws has not ended the controversy. As a substitute, it has pushed it out of courtrooms and again onto the streets.

For 1000’s of marginalised college students, the battle is not nearly one set of rules—it’s about the fitting to dignity, security, and equal belonging in India’s universities.

(Courtesy: Newsclick, an Indian information web site based by Prabir Purkayastha in 2009, who additionally serves because the Editor-in-Chief.)

❈ ❈ ❈

Refusal to See Caste Discrimination, Not ‘False Complaints’, is the Actual Disaster on Campus

Shainal Verma

The College Grants Fee’s up to date guidelines to deal with caste discrimination in larger training institutes have sparked outrage amongst Savarna commentators and college students. They declare that they’ll turn out to be victims of false complaints and that the provisions will probably be weaponised in opposition to them.

However this displays a unbroken refusal to hearken to experiences of caste discrimination on campuses, one thing I’ve witnessed intently since 2022 once I turned the primary elected pupil consultant of the Equal Alternative Cell on the Indian Institute of Expertise, Delhi.

As a part of pupil committees and thru my analysis on caste injustice, I’ve seen how the declare that Dalit, Adivasi and OBC college students misuse tips in opposition to basic class college students is invoked when a caste discrimination grievance is filed. This unfavourable framing favours the scholar or professor accused of casteism and infrequently accounts for the humiliation or insensitive behaviour confronted by the scholar making the grievance.

Over the previous few days, Savarna college students have framed themselves as potential victims of the UGC guidelines, issued on January 13, recentering the problem of casteist discrimination round their anxieties. On January 29, the Supreme Court docket stayed the brand new guidelines after listening to a public curiosity litigation which claimed that the rules had been imprecise and could possibly be misused.

Akhil Kang, a queer Dalit scholar who has extensively written about “upper-caste victimhood”, argues that claims of upper-caste victimhood usually are not about precise hurt. As a substitute, they’re about preserving ethical innocence within the face of caste accountability.

Illustrating Kang’s commentary, upper-caste college students are floating hypothetical conditions through which they could possibly be victimised by the UGC tips. For instance, one Instagram put up claims {that a} basic class feminine pupil is now afraid of being accused of caste discrimination if she rejects the advances of a male pupil from the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe class.

Such claims displace consideration from the on a regular basis experiences of discrimination of Dalit and Adivasi college students, who stay unacknowledged in school rooms and are rendered invisible on campuses the place advantage is routinely learn via caste.

Caste on campus

As a part of a gathering known as by the Nationwide Process Power arrange by the Supreme Court docket on January 12, I highlighted three essential observations based mostly on my expertise of observing casteism on campus. The assembly was attended by anti-caste intellectuals, teachers, activists and pupil representatives from universities in Delhi.

First, caste is seemingly invisible and so it’s tough to show that it exists. However the discriminatory results of caste are primarily skilled by Dalit, Adivasi and OBC college students.

For instance, a professor could make a pupil wait outdoors their workplace hours day-after-day simply to deal with one concern or converse to them. The scholar might look ahead to days on finish, typically feeling humiliated. However this won’t be recognised as “casteism”.

This identical professor might ask in regards to the pupil’s rank within the entrance examination – utilizing the phrase “hawa kya hai?”, or what’s the AIR, or all India rank. Ambedkarite pupil collectives throughout the IITs have harassed that asking a pupil’s rank must be counted as caste discrimination. Rank signifies whether or not a pupil was admitted within the basic or Dalit, Adivasi and OBC college students.

The scholar may then be labelled incompetent and underperforming, and the professor might counsel that they be expelled from IIT Delhi for not being meritorious.

The scholar might discover their admission and place on the institute being attacked and so find yourself writing to the administration and Equal Alternative Cell, or SC/ST cell, looking for authorized recourse. The Equal Alternative Cell registers the scholar’s grievance, and thereafter, a committee is about as much as inquire into caste discrimination. This illustrates how college and useful resource individuals in an establishment refuse to hearken to a pupil who feels uncared for or socially excluded.

Second, caste reveals itself via networks and help techniques.

A basic class pupil may immediately really feel a way of belonging within the classroom whereas a Dalit, Adivasi or OBC pupil could repeatedly make investments vitality in proving or defending their advantage.

As a pupil consultant, I’ve noticed that the community of Savarna students doesn’t simply provide help to Dalit, Adivasi and OBC college students and sometimes has preconceived notions about who’s meritorious or deserving.

Savarna college students journey simply via these networks, receiving steerage on scholarships overseas, constructing tutorial connections, looking for funding and discovering alternatives to get printed. However Dalit college students should hustle merely to get signatures on suggestion letters.

Even when college students have gotten admission on advantage, they’re all the time made to really feel insufficient. “Irrespective of how I carry out, I really feel invisible within the classroom,” a Dalit BTech pupil informed me off the report on campus. “The Savarna professor by no means acknowledges my greeting.”

Such an setting assaults the boldness of Dalit, Adivasi and OBC college students. The demoralisation reveals itself in lesser grades, poor progress experiences and lonely or remoted college students in campus areas.

It’s a problem to outline this expertise of being made to really feel invisible, however what could be outlined are broader actions – the implicit or express bias on the campus.

Many Dalit and Adivasi students report feeling depressed, which I consider is a results of an uncaring institutional construction that doesn’t present motivation, appreciation nor reply to their efforts correctly.

In 2022, I emailed the IIT-Delhi psychological well being crew asking why caste-based trauma was lacking from the counselling choices of gender, LGBTQ+, violence, relationship issues and campus issues. It was aimed toward making the institute recognise the truth of the trauma of caste. IIT-Delhi positively applied this, by including “caste-based trauma” as an choice on its YourDost web site, which gives counselling to enrolled college students.

The third commentary was the problem Dalit Adivasi college students face to “show” casteist discrimination. College students resort to strategies equivalent to recording verbal encounters with the perpetrators. Committees view this suspiciously, furthering the narrative that the complainant has “misused” their freedom as a pupil. I highlighted this concern to convey the necessity for digital camera surveillance inside hostel lobbies, as deaths typically happen in hostel rooms.

The unheard testimony

The refusal to acknowledge casteism is a structural response to Dalit assertion, an indignation sparked by outspoken Dalit, Adivasi and OBC college students. College students who file caste discrimination complaints are seen as “troublemakers” slightly than lonely, remoted people who had no different recourse.

Listening calls for acknowledging the testimony of the narrator. However the advantage of the doubt is basically given to the accused pupil in these cases since it’s assumed that the perpetrator was “unaware that their conduct was casteist”.

Regardless of the complainant narrating that they had been made to really feel socially excluded or discriminated in opposition to via sure actions, phrases, or behaviour, the perpetrator is more likely to dismiss such claims.

The occasions that comply with the submitting of such a grievance are not often mentioned.

Social redressal largely is dependent upon the fairness committee and the way it’s fashioned. The UGC had informed the Supreme Court docket that 90% of caste complaints had been “resolved”, however it doesn’t state what the decision entails. Committees typically discount to make sure that the accused apologises to the survivor, recognising discrimination. There are various cases when the complainant by no means receives an apology and the case is closed.

Lastly, caste consciousness could differ amongst college students as nicely: based mostly on friendships or different ties, Dalit, Adivasi and OBC college students may disagree about whether or not an incident counts as caste discrimination.

Collectively, it reveals how ending caste discrimination on campus is a gigantic social problem.

However till people and establishments embedded in caste privilege are keen to hear and prolong care via listening, caste will proceed to breed itself via denial and deepening divisions in universities.

Any fairness coverage, together with the UGC’s newest tips, will do little to eradicate casteism except there may be an institutional dedication to hearken to testimonies of discrimination with out suspicion or dismissal.

[Shainal Verma is a sociologist trained at IIT-Delhi, researching gender, labour, and caste, and was a former student representative of the SC/ST Cell. Courtesy: Scroll.in, an Indian digital news publication, whose English edition is edited by Naresh Fernandes.]

❈ ❈ ❈

Language of Steadiness Recourse of the Highly effective: Satish Deshpande on Opposition to UGC Fairness Guidelines

Sravasti Dasgupta

The Supreme Court docket has stayed the College Grants Fee (UGC) (Promotion of Fairness in Increased Schooling Establishments) Laws, 2026, calling the principles that had been delivered to deal with caste discrimination in larger training establishments as “able to misuse”.

The keep got here simply days after the principles, which had been notified on January 13, had been challenged within the apex courtroom, because the Bharatiya Janata Celebration (BJP) confronted widespread opposition from higher caste teams who alleged that the rules had been discriminatory in opposition to them.

From resignations inside the BJP together with workplace bearers in Uttar Pradesh, to protests by college students throughout campuses and out of doors the UGC’s workplace in Delhi, the saffron occasion confronted fireplace from the ‘basic’ class or higher castes from which the occasion has drawn continued help.

Sociologist Satish Deshpande, who has labored extensively on the problem of caste and training, stated that the Supreme Court docket’s keep is “disappointing” and sends out the “flawed message”.

In an interview with The Wire, Deshpande stated the 2026 rules had been certain to face issues of their implementation as with all measure that goes in opposition to the ability gradient of society, however that their potential for misuse, which exists with any legislation, can’t imply that there must be no legislation.

“This concern of the higher caste that they may be discriminated in opposition to is the traditional ‘man bites canine’ story. Sure it could possibly occur, and sometimes does occur, however what’s the frequency and what’s the preponderance of occasions in society? What are the ability equations in society – that’s what now we have to contemplate,” he stated.

The widespread protests by higher caste teams have additionally put into query the sustainability of the BJP’s model of Hindutva politics that’s basically Brahminical.

Learn edited excerpts of the interview under.

● ● ●

Sravasti Dasgupta: How do you see the 2026 rules which have now been stayed by the Supreme Court docket?

Satish Deshpande: I’m deeply upset that this regulation has been stayed. I believe the keep sends out the flawed message. However I used to be stunned that the regulation was introduced within the first place. I can solely hope that there will probably be such constructive surprises in future additionally.

The 2026 rules publicly acknowledged that discrimination is now right here to remain as a public concern. This was not the case earlier than – till the 2010s, discrimination in larger training was by no means actually acknowledged formally. The 2012 rules introduced it up however these rules had been largely ignored by HEIs [higher education institutions]. So there was a technique of the rules being killed by neglect. Attributable to strain from the general public and PILs and the courts, the present regime has thought it match to concern rules to acknowledge discrimination.

There are definitely going to be huge issues with implementation. With any measure that goes in opposition to the ability gradient of society, there may be all the time hassle and issues with implementation. However the step ahead was the acknowledgement of the truth and presence of discrimination.

Sravasti Dasgupta: Is the outpouring of higher caste anger that we noticed notably in opposition to misuse of the 2026 UGC Guidelines to be anticipated?

Satish Deshpande: The potential for misuse exists with any laws.

When there’s a legislation in opposition to theft, we don’t instantly begin worrying about defending the pursuits of robbers, although there’s a chance that there may be some misuse of the legislation. False circumstances of theft are typically put, notably in opposition to home staff. However this doesn’t imply there must be no legislation.

In case you transplant this concern into different contexts, the absurdity of it being the primary and first concern turns into obvious.

The language of stability is a really acquainted argument and it’s the recourse of the highly effective. Appeals for stability between fully unequal forces is a really outdated argument. And in reality, the constitutional liberal concept of formal equality can be a serious weapon within the arms of the highly effective.

The primary modification of the Indian Structure was exactly to counter fees of reverse discrimination. This notion of equality was used to assault any form of affirmative motion or compensatory justice schemes. So it is a very outdated tactic. However it’s true that implementation will probably be a problem.

That is actually the brand new part of social justice we’re coming into now the place we will probably be compelled to take care of advanced intersectionalities. There will probably be few circumstances of the best sufferer and even the proper perpetrator, all neatly black and white, good and evil. Particularly with the entry of the OBCs, the social justice battle has entered a really difficult part the place teams which have been clubbed collectively below this very giant and unwieldy label could be each oppressor and oppressed.

This concern of the higher caste that they may be discriminated in opposition to is the traditional ‘man bites canine’ story. Sure it could possibly occur, and sometimes does occur, however what’s the frequency and what’s the preponderance of occasions in society? What are the ability equations in society – that’s what now we have to contemplate.

Theoretically, the Structure must be a adequate situation to make sure that we dwell in paradise. However that doesn’t occur, and the necessity for particular legal guidelines is compelled upon us by social circumstances, which make it unattainable for the weak to get justice. Then particular legal guidelines have additionally to be launched for newly recognised crimes. Particular legal guidelines are supposed to strengthen present legal guidelines. So whereas there’s a potential for misuse, that shouldn’t be the very first thing that strikes us. There additionally checks and balances constructed into the due course of a part of rules.

Sravasti Dasgupta: On condition that the BJP has drawn its largest help from higher caste teams, how do you foresee the political implications for the occasion in such a state of affairs?

Satish Deshpande: This has all the time been the central query for the reason that rise of Hindutva politics and its success up to now 20 years. The central query has been: Can the usual version of Hindutva, which is basically Brahminical, maintain an electoral balancing act which would require it to enchantment to the big majority of decrease castes whereas retaining its higher caste core?

This has been dealt with efficiently to date in electoral phrases by the Modi regime, however that sport plan can’t work without end. Any plan is topic to the contingencies of historic occasions and adjustments within the ranges of consciousness.

They’ve been driving two horses all this whereas and all of the sudden it’s testing time. Can this regime proceed to enchantment to the big plenty whereas on the identical time signalling that its coronary heart is in the fitting place so far as the higher castes are involved?

The overwhelming victory of Hindutva politics in latest instances makes us neglect that any politics, nevertheless dominant, remains to be weak to occasions and social adjustments that are past their management. As an illustration, the problem of local weather change or the path that the world economic system is taking are world occasions which change the native taking part in discipline. That’s what is going on and, in that sense, that is the implicit strain of driving two horses directly being made express.

[Courtesy: The Wire, an Indian nonprofit news and opinion website. It was founded in 2015 by Siddharth Varadarajan, Sidharth Bhatia and M. K. Venu.]

❈ ❈ ❈

What Is ‘Reverse Discrimination’ and Why Is It Being Introduced Up for the UGC’s 2026 Guidelines?

Sukanya Shantha

This interview was carried out earlier than the Supreme Court docket stayed the UGC’s 2026 Fairness Guidelines.

● ● ●

Sukanya Shantha: Hey and welcome to The Wire. My identify is Sukanya Shantha. Following the Supreme Court docket’s path within the petitions filed by two moms, Radhika Vemula and Abeda Tadvi, the college’s grants fee issued tips to deal with discrimination in opposition to the scholars from scheduled caste, scheduled tribes, different backward courses, the economically weaker part and likewise different types of discrimination on the idea of gender, disabilities that are rampant on Indian campus. The college’s grant fee promotion of fairness in larger training establishments regulation of 2026 had been notified on January 13 and now it applies to all larger training establishments in India. Because the notification, protests first on-line and now progressively shifting offline have been increase throughout the nation. As anticipated, the protesting communities are the savarnas who’ve curiously positioned themselves as victims and really feel that the rules will indiscriminately goal them. Memes, reels, video interviews, all very wild and casteist are flooding social media platforms. As anticipated, they’re steeped in baseless claims and are factually incorrect. A plea has now been filed earlier than the Supreme Court docket difficult the just lately notified guidelines. The Supreme Court docket observing that it’s conscious of what’s taking place within the nation has agreed to listen to the plea. To unpack the small print of those rules, the issues raised and what this implies for campuses nationwide, we at the moment are joined by advocate Disha Wadekar who represents each Radhika Vemula and Abeda Tadvi within the courtroom. Thanks for becoming a member of us, Disha, at present.

Disha Wadekar: Thanks, Sukanya. Thanks for having me.

Sukanya Shantha: Are you able to please inform us what precisely do these rules really say and extra importantly, what they don’t say?

Disha Wadekar: Yeah. So, Sukanya, these rules, the UGC fairness rules of 2026 clearly have set out in its goal three issues. It says that the target of those rules is A, to eradicate discrimination based mostly on numerous entry, caste, gender, disabilities, fatherland and different types of discrimination. So, it’s to A, to eradicate these types of discrimination from campuses. And secondly, it talks about bringing in fairness and inclusion in campus areas. So, that is primarily the target of the rules, to eradicate discrimination and to advertise fairness and inclusion in larger academic establishments. So, that is what the rules are about. Now, what do these rules do? These are firstly, rules that function within the civil realm. They don’t seem to be a prison legislation. There’s not going to be any punishment or any incarceration based mostly on these rules. They’re solely giving civil treatments for circumstances of discrimination based mostly on caste, gender, disabilities, and so forth. They really set out a mechanism to take care of complaints of discrimination based mostly on all these entry.

Now, what is that this committee? It says that an fairness committee must be arrange. It’s a multi-member physique and that committee has illustration from pupil group, from professors of the school. It even has the pinnacle of the establishment on the committee, which is one thing that now we have been opposing. However the head of the establishment is the chairperson of the committee. It has representatives from the civil society as nicely. And that is an fairness committee, which types the core of those rules. This fairness committee is meant to look into complaints of discrimination based mostly on caste, gender, and so forth. And it’s this committee which is able to make suggestions based mostly on its findings in numerous complaints in regards to the punishments that should be given. Now, the punishment part of those rules can be essential as a result of we aren’t speaking about some form of prison motion. The punishment really talks about UGC rules, present ministry tips, in addition to college bylaws that prescribe numerous types of punishment. What are these punishments? These punishments could possibly be so simple as giving the respondent or the one that has been discovered to be responsible by the committee a easy warning, proper? Or asking the individual to even say, write an apology saying that I’ve completed this and I don’t want to additional, I’ll, I take an enterprise that I cannot have interaction in these sorts of discriminatory acts, proper? It may be so simple as that. If it’s a trainer, a professor, a non-teaching workers member, their promotions could be withheld, proper? If they’re discovered to be responsible, or they could possibly be suspended within the interim, or say in an excessive case, in excessive types of discriminatory acts, that individual can, the respondent could be rusticated, the scholar could be rusticated.

So these are all civil treatments that aren’t new to this nation. We’ve clearly seen this already within the POSH Act, the Sexual Harassment Act, proper? And the ICCs that we see. These are the form of treatments which might be obtainable with any form of inquiry committee inside a college area, proper? So these are what the rules say. What they don’t say is essential. Like I already identified, it isn’t speaking about any form of prison motion. That isn’t the ability that both the UGC or the school administration has, proper? So it isn’t a prison legislation. These usually are not rules to focus on a specific group or group. These are protecting legal guidelines. They’re really meant to guard weak communities, marginalized communities that don’t simply take pleasure in safety within the rules, however in our structure itself. In case you take a look at Article 15 of the structure, if you happen to take a look at Article 17 of the structure, you see that these are the identical communities which have been given safety below our constitutional scheme. So that is extra about safety, and it isn’t in any respect about concentrating on any explicit group.

Sukanya Shantha: Proper, proper. Disha, as I perceive that this isn’t a brand new regulation, just like the UGC rules in opposition to discriminations have existed and so they have existed since 2012. Might you then stroll us via what these earlier rules had been and clarify what are the latest ones are, just like the variations between the 2?

Disha Wadekar: Sure.

Sukanya Shantha: And likewise like, I perceive like there are like new classes which have been really included. So if you happen to might really undergo every one in every of it and simply in a while really clarify it to us, the distinction between the 2 rules.

Disha Wadekar: Undoubtedly. Yeah. So firstly, these, such as you stated, you understand, you identified rightly that these usually are not new rules. They’ve existed since 2012 and so they go by the identical identify. They’re known as the Promotion of Fairness in Increased Schooling rules. These rules, once more, had the identical goal of eradicating or stopping caste-based, gender-based discrimination or discrimination in opposition to individuals with disabilities, and so forth. And this sort of mechanism that was advised and that we now have via these fairness committee within the new rules that has additionally existed within the earlier rules. In fact, it varies in kind as a result of there you had a one-member physique within the fairness committee. There was an anti-discrimination officer who was imagined to be an affiliate professor. Now you’ve got within the new rules a multi-member physique with illustration from all stakeholders, and so forth. However clearly, these rules have all the time existed. The brand new additions of teams in these rules, let’s discuss in regards to the OBC group, as an illustration. When the 2012 rules got here, they particularly talked about solely scheduled caste and scheduled tribe communities. However one additionally wants to grasp that it got here within the context of Mandal too, when OBC reservation, the query of OBC reservation was below dialogue and OBC reservation was not being applied. Now we see so a few years later, 15, 10, 15 years later, we’re seeing that OBCs are more and more coming into these areas by a constitutional modification, which has been held by the courtroom to be legitimate, the place OBCs at the moment are getting admissions and reservations and better training establishments as nicely. So in that mild, the brand new rules have additionally included the OBC group. So that’s one main distinction between the older rules and who the aggrieved individual within the older rules could possibly be and who the aggrieved individual within the new rules could possibly be. The second inclusion once more is the EWS class, the financial weaker part. Once more, within the older rules, you didn’t have the EWS class as a result of EWS reservation was not a factor at the moment, proper? And we noticed this after the case the place the EWS reservation got here and the 103rd modification was held to be legitimate, that now this nation additionally has EWS reservation, then you’ll have EWS candidates who’re all non-STOBC, that is essential to say, as a result of EWS is a class that’s solely higher caste, proper, or basic class. In order that class additionally finds point out within the new rules, the 2026 rules as a protected class alongside the OBCs.

Sukanya Shantha: Proper. So in accordance with the brand new UGC guidelines, the target may be very clear, like I’ll simply quote what it says, eradicate discrimination solely on the idea of faith, race, gender, fatherland, caste, or incapacity, notably in opposition to the members of SC, ST, socially and economically backward courses, the EWS, individuals with incapacity or any of them, and to advertise full fairness and inclusion amongst the stakeholders within the larger training establishment. So such as you talked about in your response to the sooner query, so it’s the SC, STs, OBCs, and the opposite classes very clearly additionally contains the higher caste, what we perceive within the governmental class as the overall class. So why is then the fitting seeing this as a betrayal slightly than the fairness, like how do you perceive this complete, the controversy that has really been, that’s damaged out and the best way, the form of pushback that’s coming from the fitting and invariably from the southern identities?

Disha Wadekar: So like we already talked about, Sukanya, it’s not that these rules are new, they’ve all the time been there, why is that this selective outrage taking place now? I consider one main reply to this could possibly be that now the brand new rules have an enforcement clause. So let me inform you, so once we had filed this petition for Abeda Tadvi and Radhika Vemula within the Supreme Court docket, we did it, we filed a number of RTIs, we filed two RTIs in 2018 and 2019 as a result of we filed the petition in 2019. And the RTIs, from the RTI responses, we noticed that round 10,000 universities, schools, there was full institutional, there was no consciousness, institutional consciousness about these rules. So these equal alternative cells or fairness committees mandated below the rules didn’t exist in any of those schools and universities. Rohit’s loss of life and Payal’s loss of life occurred a lot after, proper, like in 2016, 2019. There have been already 2012 rules that had been in place, however they had been simply formally there on paper. They weren’t being applied by the establishments. There was a whole institutional apathy, is what I want to name it, from the establishments finish. Now the brand new rules have an attention-grabbing clause and this was the rationale why we had filed the petition.

We stated, we informed the courtroom that these rules, despite the fact that they formally exist, they don’t seem to be being applied. So there’s a must have an inbuilt enforcement mechanism, enforcement clause, the place the UGC, which is a statutory physique that has sure powers below the UGC Act to make sure enforcement of its rules. And the way do they try this? So within the UGC Act, UGC has the ability to withdraw the grants. It’s a grants fee. So it offers grants to establishments, particularly authorities establishments. So it could possibly withdraw the grants if a sure college shouldn’t be implementing its guidelines and rules.

It additionally has the ability to de-recognize affiliations. UGC additionally offers affiliations to sure schools. A university is affiliated to A college, B college, and so forth. So these affiliations could be withdrawn if a university or college doesn’t implement its guidelines. Thirdly, UGC additionally has the ability to de-recognize programs. UGC offers recognition to so many programs. So it has these powers. So the brand new rules, after our intervention, and this was our main demand, our foremost demand, I might say, that it is advisable have an enforcement mechanism and so they have now included that enforcement mechanism within the type of a non-compliance clause, which signifies that any non-compliant college should face the results from UGC. So going again to your query, so that is the rationale why I consider that there’s this outrage, as a result of now there’s a actual menace, a so-called menace, of the rules being applied and enforced, as a result of until now they’ve solely existed on paper. Neither Payal Tadvi’s faculty nor Rohit Vemula’s faculty or college had these rules or these equal alternative cells after they had been going through these types of discrimination. Proper?

Sukanya Shantha: Proper, proper. Very attention-grabbing. Yeah. So the anger that has been pouring out may be very clear. It’s really concentrating on the BJP as if the BJP is the one which has betrayed them. They’re really doing reverse casteism, discrimination in opposition to the higher caste. All the discourse at this second is framed in such a approach that it’s the federal government which got here up with this rule by itself. However rather a lot really went into this petition, proper? The petition, such as you stated, was filed a few years in the past and the combat has really taken so a few years earlier than the rules had been lastly really notified. So might you simply stroll us via the journey of this petition? How did you persuade each moms, Rohit Vemula’s mom, Radhika Vemula, and likewise Payal’s mom, Abeda Tadvi, to combat this case within the Supreme Court docket?

Disha Wadekar: So slightly than me convincing them, I used to be already representing Abeda ji within the Payal Tadvi case, the suicide case that has occurred. And I believe it was the moms who had been very a lot satisfied that this isn’t merely about suicides, however that is about discrimination. I believe they had been very clear about what their children had gone via, proper? And each of them felt that each Payal, particularly in Payal’s case, as a result of the mom and the husband, Payal’s husband, had been constantly approaching the authorities, the school authorities, about these cases of harassment and discrimination that Payal was going through. And they didn’t discover any

Sukanya Shantha: I might say, recourse within the faculty, as a result of they had been…

Disha Wadekar: Proper? So Payal’s mom had, in reality, in one of many conversations that we had, and it was like a web-based assembly like this, the place she spoke about this, that we didn’t have any recourse. And that’s once we began wanting on the fairness regulation, began wanting on the UGC rules, whether or not there are any authorized safeguards that exist already, as a result of there isn’t any level in going to courtroom with some new rules or new tips or instructions, if there already exists a mechanism. And we discovered that these fairness rules of 2012 had existed all alongside. And in reality, I, myself, being a lawyer, having labored in all of those circumstances, was not conscious of those rules. Many individuals that I talked to, many teachers, many sociologists, educationists, weren’t conscious. Schools and universities had been fully apathetic. They had been by no means frightened or involved about these rules, even when they knew about them. So we thought that there’s a must file this case. And the 2 moms, in reality, based mostly on their expertise, determined that we really must deal with the basis trigger, that’s discrimination, which is why the suicides of their children occurred. After which we went to the courtroom and we took the UGC rules, that was the crux of our petition, the UGC 2012 rules. And we had two prayers earlier than the courtroom. One prayer, like I stated, was to herald an inbuilt mechanism of enforcement of those rules via a non-compliance clause. In order that was the implementation half.

However we additionally felt that there was some lacunae within the regulation, within the 2012 rules. What had been these lacunae? One of many lacunae that we discovered was that the fairness committee or the inquiry committee was a one-member physique. We thought that that’s not truthful as a result of it doesn’t embrace all stakeholders. And that inquiry is to be carried out by an affiliate professor. So we thought that that’s a particularly problematic provision. No individual will get any justice earlier than a committee which solely has a professor in it. Secondly, the regulation stated that the appeals mechanism, so if as soon as the grievance is determined by the anti-discrimination officer, if somebody desires to enchantment, there was an enchantment mechanism. However the enchantment was within the older rules imagined to go to the pinnacle of the establishment. Now that once more we thought is extraordinarily problematic as a result of that creates a battle of curiosity, proper, state of affairs. Yeah, the place the pinnacle of the establishment will really be eager about defending the establishment’s picture, as now we have seen in so many circumstances. In order that was one other problematic provision. We additionally felt that the punishments clause in these rules was not nicely outlined. There was one other concern almost about monitoring mechanisms. So there was no monitoring mechanism for any of those fairness committees. So fairness committees solely function at school or college stage, proper. Now the school can do no matter it desires. They will make them non-functional additionally. They will make them extraordinarily ineffective in the event that they wish to. They will simply have paper committees if they need. So there must be an oversight on these committees and there must be an oversight monitoring mechanism, proper.

So we thought that that mechanism additionally didn’t exist in these rules. We additionally felt that OBCs now had been excluded, proper, and now we have come this far and OBCs at the moment are slowly coming into faculty areas, college areas via the reservation coverage and so they themselves are going through some types of systemic discrimination. One main type of discrimination OBCs are constantly going through and OBC class has been going through is that within the admissions the OBC reservation shouldn’t be even being applied in most schools and universities. Way back to, you understand, 4 years, two years again nationwide legislation faculties, huge nationwide legislation faculties had, didn’t have a coverage reservation coverage for OBCs. OBCs additionally get scholarships from the federal government. There’s a delay in disbursal of those scholarships and universities and administration harass the scholars as a result of they don’t, as a result of these scholarships don’t are available in time. So both they’ll say that we are going to droop you as a result of we’ve not acquired your charges otherwise you each take a mortgage and, you understand, you pay the charges of the school. So all of this sort of harassment or systemic harassment can be now taking place with the OBC group, proper? On high of that, OBCs are additionally victims of stereotyping, proper? Even when there isn’t any violence of that kind or an atrocity of that kind that’s being dedicated in opposition to OBC and there might not be that form of proof or even when there may be, we aren’t conscious of it as but. However these types of stereotyping and stigmatization of OBC communities based mostly on their caste id continues to occur, proper? And campuses and college areas usually are not an exception. It occurs there as nicely. So it was, we additionally thought that you will need to have OBC communities included within the rules. So a few of these features we introduced earlier than the courtroom in our petition and we thought that the courtroom ought to look into this and the courtroom ought to give tips or instructions to UGC to strengthen the rules.

Sukanya Shantha: Proper. So now that we are literally making an attempt to debunk all these misinterpretations and misrepresentation of what the petitions are.

Disha Wadekar: Sorry, I’ll simply interject. So this was the petition. How the rules happened can be essential as a result of once more, such as you stated, you understand, the credit score goes some place else or the discredit for that matter goes some place else and largely the goal is UGC. However UGC by itself has not completed this. The rules have existed since 2012. 2019, we filed the petition with these prayers, like I stated, and the courtroom issued instructions to UGC to reply to our petition. UGC in response stated that we wish to work on this. We wish to strengthen the rules. They arrange a committee, their inside committee to draft revised rules with strengthened mechanisms and the draft rules had been introduced by the UGC earlier than courtroom. These draft rules got here in February of 2025. We weren’t pleased with these draft rules. We submitted to the courtroom, we made submissions to the courtroom saying that many adjustments should be made within the draft rules. They’re fairly problematic. These solutions of ours had been recorded by the courtroom in September 2025. These had been 10 level solutions on the draft rules that we had made. And curiously, the courtroom additionally requested UGC to contemplate these solutions and notify the rules as quickly as potential. 4 months later, UGC works on these solutions, works on these suggestions, considers them. Among the it accepts, a few of course it has not accepted. After which in January of 2026, 13 January 2026, to be particular, these rules are notified by the UGC by a courtroom order, pursuant to a courtroom order.

Sukanya Shantha: Proper, proper. Thanks. Thanks for including this bit. So what I used to be making an attempt to ask is, so there may be, we’re making an attempt like, this entire try right here now we’re making is to debunk all of the misinformation that has been very deliberately been unfold and like how the brand new regulation is checked out as a menace by a sure part of the society and clearly the higher caste, the so-called basic classes. So simply to make like, simply to grasp a number of issues, if I had been to really cite an instance, if a lady who occurs to be from a sovereign really faces gender-based discrimination, or if an individual with incapacity faces discrimination on the idea of the incapacity that he’s, he has, she or he has, and within the arms of any individual who comes from a Bahujan caste, from a SC or ST caste. So what occurs then? Like, does this rule then apply and may or not it’s used in opposition to even those who’re really from SC, ST, in that case?

Disha Wadekar: 100%.These usually are not rules solely based mostly on caste, proper. They, like we stated, you understand, there may be gender, there may be incapacity, there are different types of discrimination which have been included. And if an higher caste girl has a grievance of gender-based discrimination in opposition to, the idea of discrimination is essential, gender-based discrimination in opposition to a schedule caste man, let’s say, proper. She will be able to positively file a grievance of gender-based discrimination, proper. The rules don’t forestall an higher caste girl to file a grievance, a gender-based discrimination grievance in opposition to a decrease caste or Dalit or Adivasi man, proper. The truth is, the rules are literally defending such a lady, proper, such an higher caste girl in opposition to gender-based discrimination by schedule caste, schedule tribe males. So let’s be very clear, this isn’t, you understand, these usually are not rules which might be solely meant to focus on higher castes. These are rules,

Sukanya Shantha: Proper, proper, yeah.

Disha Wadekar: So as an illustration, there could be an higher caste individual with incapacity and so they could have a grievance in opposition to the schedule caste, schedule tribe able-bodied individual that they’re discriminating in opposition to me based mostly on my incapacity. That grievance can be enunciated, explicitly talked about and has area in these rules and that safety very a lot there within the rules. It’s very express there, there’s no query, one actually has to learn the rules correctly and never go round this kind of rumour-mongering that’s taking place across the rules. That isn’t what the rules say.

Sukanya Shantha: Proper, proper. So the federal government’s personal information that was supplied within the Rajya Sabha in 2023, it states that between 2019 and 2021, 98 college students from Dalit, Adivasi and from the OBC communities died by suicide in central universities and different high establishments just like the IITs, the IIMs, the NITs, the IICRs. Additionally, the caste-based discrimination complaints in universities and schools, in accordance with the info that the UGC has submitted to the parliamentary panel and the Supreme Court docket, has jumped 118.4% from 2019-2020 to 2020-24. So these are authorities information. These are the info that the federal government our bodies have really collated, they’ve really introduced it earlier than the committees, the parliamentary committees, the Supreme Court docket. And but you’ve got BJP leaders who’re very clearly talking in opposition to the UGC guidelines. Some have even really gone about resigning from regardless of the occasion positions that they had been holding. So learn how to perceive these contradictions, these contradictory responses which might be really popping out? How do you see it as a lawyer, a lawyer who is definitely caring for these circumstances within the Supreme Court docket?

Disha Wadekar: I imply, in our nation, it’s not like that is taking place for the primary time. It’s occurred each time there was any try by the federal government to herald a protecting laws for marginalised communities, whether or not it’s ladies, whether or not it’s SEST individuals, whether or not it’s with disabilities, the narrative round misuse has all the time existed. And it’ll exist as lengthy, and I’m not saying that it’s only a narrative, legal guidelines are misused. They’re liable to being misused. Any lawyer, any authorized tutorial will inform you each legislation you go along with the consideration if you end up working with the legislation, that legal guidelines will probably be misused. So as an illustration, it isn’t simply protecting legislatures which might be misused, proper?

Sukanya Shantha: Proper, yeah, yeah

Disha Wadekar: We’ve one thing as elementary the IPC which can be utilized. So, the theft provision is misused in opposition to so many instances, in opposition to individuals from poor backgrounds, individuals from nomadic communities and denotified communities. The place they’re focused within the theft circumstances, proper? There are even so many circumstances of custodial torture and custodial violence and murders, with respect to theft offenses. So one thing as fundamental and elementary as a theft offence in an IPC can be misused. Does that imply that you just chorus from having any form of legislation? We nonetheless have legal guidelines, proper?

Sukanya Shantha: Sure, sure, yeah.

Disha Wadekar: We nonetheless must have legal guidelines. So, misuse cann0t be the logic of, you understand, not having a protecting laws, not to mention an IPC kind of laws, proper? So, so, the best way I perceive that is that there’s someplace in some sections this kind of narrative that you understand higher castes will probably be focused by the legislations. Let me inform you one factor, legislation when it’s made, and we live in a democratic nation which has the rule of legislation, proper, which suggests there may be due technique of legislation, which signifies that legislation in itself has safeguards for respondents. What do these safeguards- or accused events, right- what are these safeguards? It isn’t like you’ll file a grievance and an individual goes to be despatched behind the bars within the fairness, so far as the fairness rules are involved. Firstly, like I stated these are civil rules, so no person, let me clear this as soon as and for all, no person’s going behind the bars. Secondly, let me inform you, the fairness rules, when you file a grievance, there may be a whole process that has been specified by the rules itself on how that inquiry is to be carried out. Now, how does an inquiry occur? A grievance is information, a committee is about up, the committee seems on the grievance. They prima facie, the committee finds the grievance has no advantage, it’s a frivolous grievance. They will simply dismiss the grievance, then and there, proper? But when the committee thinks that there’s some validity to that grievance, the committee will then provoke its process. Now what’s that procedure- the committee will name upon the respondent, or the individual in opposition to whom the grievance is made, concern discover to that individual, asking to that individual to place forth their say on that grievance. So, that individual, the respondent, will really should submit their response on the grievance, so they are going to be heard. Secondly, the committee will take a look at all of the proof, each from complainant’s aspect and the respondent’s, each are allowed to deliver their proof, proper? One will defend, the respondent will defend himself, herself, and the complainant will in fact make allegations after which produce proof supporting their allegations. So this proof will probably be checked out. One can even be allowed to get their very own witnesses in the event that they wish to. So all this due course of, all of the ideas of pure justice, should be adopted. We live in a rustic that has rule of legislation, at the very least so far as I do know, proper, uh, I’d wish to consider we do – so, let’s say that you understand, you understand, this isn’t one thing, some state of affairs the place all of the sudden the grievance is filed and the individual goes to be vanished.

In spite of everything of this proof is checked out and appreciated by the committee, they’ll attain a discovering or a conclusion and that discovering or conclusion could be within the favour of the complainant or could be in favour the respondent – in favour of the respondent as in, the respondent will probably be let, you understand, be go scot-free. Now, as soon as that discovering is reached, the committee e is meant to ship its findings and its solutions on the punishment- so that they can even award punishment that needs to be once more proportionate to the act, the discriminatory act, proper, it needs to be proportionate. Like, whether it is, it’s a grievance that’s not of such grave nature, then the punishment additionally needs to be proportionate. Like in so many circumstances we see that individuals are simply writing undertakings and saying I cannot repeat this behaviour. Now, these suggestions are then despatched to the pinnacle of the establishments, and the pinnacle of establishment now acts on these punishments which have been prescribed by the committee. So this complete course of, this complete due course of is adopted, proper? This entire concept of you grievance will probably be filed, tons of and 1000’s and lakhs of complaints will probably be filed and we are going to all be punished and we are going to faraway from college areas, I believe that does, this isn’t true. And now we have seen this occur earlier than within the ICCs (Inner Grievance Committees for Sexual Harassment). This has been, this isn’t new.

Sukanya Shantha: Yeah, yeah. Thanks, thanks a lot Disha, for strolling us via the case, the petition you filed, and likewise serving to us perceive this isn’t a charity based mostly method by the federal government however a really clear justice-driven effort that has been painstakingly constructed over years of laborious authorized fights. Thanks a lot.

Disha Wadekar: Thanks a lot Sukanya, thanks.

[Courtesy: The Wire, an Indian nonprofit news and opinion website. It was founded in 2015 by Siddharth Varadarajan, Sidharth Bhatia and M. K. Venu.]